I do believe nearly all of the posts above were implying that they did not believe many of their wifes’ excuses (I mean you left it in the freezer, dropped it in your coffee more than once?). And sure some people probably ignore calls from the spouse because they just call too much with no reason. I doubt however that makes up a huge portion of the people above. I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you I only call my wife about twice a week leaving work (maybe this is way I’m not completely ignored as others above, maybe its just because she’s just better at using a cell phone who knows?). But trying to trivialize the questions asked or other reasons for a phone call, as you did, doesn’t justify a non-answer. If we’re out of milk or dog food or what ever, and I didn’t get any at the store while there means someone needs to go get some later. And if this happens because the spouse is too busy talking to friends or never charges her battery or just plain ignores you it can get annoying. As you said mikey, cell phones are for making calls, but what’s the point if the other person believes this too and never picks up?

I’ll end by saying I’m no expert on women or relationships either, but my feeling is that if your spouse ignores you constantly (purposely here, not the “never has it charged” people), what ever the reason, there are bigger problems than, “oh he calls me too much.”

Interesting comments. Of course, my post was exaggerated and I’m a guy. But your remarks were compelling nonetheless.

After reading ten comments from guys assuming that their wives were either deaf or just spacey I thought it would be worth it to at least consider the possibility that they may just not want to take the call.

I’m no expert on women, but I think it’s possible that some of them, having received enough phone calls inquiring about the current stock of dog food in the house, might just not want to be bothered.

I will. As soon as you show me where I said everyone is bashing KU.

…I said Weber is a better coach than Self. I also said that college B-ball is 85% recruiting, which was just regurgitating what Self had said in an interview about his first year in the tournement with Tulsa. You then said that you would take the guy with the better record and the three elite 8 teams.

Actually, I said I’d take the guy who’s coached more games, won a better percentage of them, and enjoyed success at more schools. (And took 4 teams to the Elite Eight, not 3. But who’s counting?)

How did Self get to those Elite 8 teams? Because college BBall is 85% talent and he is a better recruiter.

Yup. I’m sure that’s how Self’s ‘99-’00 Tulsa team beat the 2nd-seeded Cincinnati Bearcats of Bob Huggins to reach the Sweet 16. Better talent.

Not quite sure how that explains they guy who followed Self at Tulsa going to just the NIT the very next year with the same players. Or how it explains why Self managed to go 27-8, win the Big 10 and go to the Elite Eight in his first year at Illinois with the same players Lon Kruger left behind after a 22-10 record the year before. But I’m sure you’ll tell me.

Did Self do better with the talent he recruited to Illinois than Weber? The answer is no, he didn’t.

Actually, the answer is that their two most comparable teams – Self’s final team at Illinois, and Weber’s first team at Illinois – posted nearly identical results. Self went 25-7, won the conference post-season title and got a #4 seed while playing largely freshmen and sophomores. Weber went 26-7, won the conference regular-season title and got a #5 seed while playing largely sophomores and juniors. It wasn’t until those same players were juniors and seniors the next season that Weber enjoyed appreciably more success. Which, frankly, I’d certainly hope would be the case with such an experienced team.

Why? Because Weber is a better coach.

Or, like I said, it could be solely because Self’s freshmen and sophomores were finally juniors and seniors, and all Weber did was ride them to a great record in ‘04-’05. Seems equally plausible.

Would Illinois fans take Self over Weber? Every one of us would because College sports are about talent. That is why we have Ron Zook. 85% recruiting, 15% coaching.

And I just happen to think that all signs point to Self’s 15% coaching being at least as good as Bruce Weber’s 15%.

And mikey: “As far as I’m concerned that thing is for making calls, not taking them.”

Basically you’re saying you’re more important than anything someone might be calling you about. That’s a really good personality trait to have.

And then you say this: “You guys are crazy if you think your wives and girlfriends are failing to answer the phone for any reason other than that they don’t want to take your call.”

See the problem is you can’t speak for anyone else. Its pretty obvious when the phone is off or dead versus being ignored or not noticed, for instance, but you fail to take that into account in your, “failing to answer the phone for any reason other than that they don’t want to take your call” statement. So all you’re doing is generalizing what YOU do to what everyone else’s wife does. So you aren’t speaking for them, you’re just speaking for yourself. You obviously have a terrific relationship with your husband…..

Me: “Hi it’s Brian. Do you need me to pick up anything from the store on my way home?”

Wife: “No that’s okay.”

Me: “Okay I’ll see you in 10 minutes or so.”

Wife: “Wait, I have to tell you what happened to me today.”

My inner thoughts: “Son of a………”

Thank you for letting me vent.

Regardless, I’ll gladly eat crow here if Reynolds proves to be the best player on the floor tonight. Since the guy I compared him to earlier will be guarding him (and, by the way, may not even be KU’s best player), it should be an interesting test.